It’s shaping up to be a bumper harvest for legal firms involved in Canadian Wheat Board lawsuits.
The number of farmer-funded lawsuits stemming from proposed legislative changes to the CWB increased by two last week.
On Oct. 26, wheat board chair Allen Oberg announced that the wheat board would launch a lawsuit against the federal government.
A day later, the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association (WCWGA) launched its action against the wheat board, citing misuse of farmers’ money.
The two latest challenges will be heaped on top of a third legal action that was launched earlier this year by the Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board (FCWB).
Read Also
Farmers urged to be grain-safe this fall
Working around grain bins comes with risk, from farmers falling to drowning in grain: Experts have five tips to help avoid grain-related accidents this harvest.
In June, FCWB filed documents in Federal Court requesting a judicial review of Ottawa’s plans to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act without first holding a farmer plebiscite.
The organizations initiating the lawsuits have refused to share details about estimated legal costs or internal budgeting for legal services.
However, it appears in all three cases that farmers will be on the hook for covering most of the legal costs, either through voluntary contributions or funds derived from CWB pool accounts.
Terry Zakreski, a Saskatoon lawyer familiar with agricultural issues in Western Canada, said it would be difficult to estimate the costs associated with the three legal actions.
He said a variety of factors influence overall expenditures, including the complexity of each case, the legal budgets of the plaintiffs, the experience of the lawyers working on each case, their years at the bar and the rates charged by different legal teams.
“The problem with that is it’s a little like asking how much would it cost to buy farm equipment,” said Zakreski.
“It depends on what you’re going to buy. I would anticipate that it’s going to be fairly expensive … but it’s really, really difficult to give a number because it depends on who’s being retained, what their billing rate is going to be and what their anticipated time frame will be.”
There are differences in how the lawsuits will be funded. The wheat board lawsuit will be financed through its farmer pool accounts.
In an Oct. 25 meeting with internal and external legal experts, the board received ball park estimates on how much its legal action against Ottawa would cost.
However, CWB chair Allen Oberg declined to make those estimates public, saying only that the board’s legal costs would pale in comparison to the monetary benefits that the CWB delivers to farmers each year.
Oberg said there is a chance the courts will decide to combine the FCWB and CWB legal challenges because the bases of both actions are similar.
“In relation to the cost, I don’t have any hard numbers on that but when you compare what the benefits of the Canadian Wheat Board are and what they provide back to farmers – about $500 million a year – the costs of this legal action are minuscule,” he said.
The WCWGA lawsuit, meanwhile, is seeking an injunction that would prohibit the wheat board from using pool accounts to pay for its action against Ottawa.
Chair Gerrid Gust declined to say how much the challenge would cost, but stressed it would be paid for by voluntary contributions from association members and not from the organization’s regular budget.
Gust was critical of the CWB decision to finance its action through pool accounts, especially when a significant number of producers favour marketing change.
But Oberg said CWB directors who supported the lawsuit believe they have a clear mandate.
“The last time we checked, the WCWGA had less than 300 members, so to say that they are representative of farmers in Western Canada, that’s ridiculous,” said Oberg.
